Thursday, May 15, 2008


I know there are some who are still worried about a John McCain presidency. I don’t have to go into the whole thing, we know it chapter and verse. Immigration, free trade and his history of animosity towards conservatives. Now some have been throwing around the name BOB BARR. Barr is the civil libertarian who left the GOP some years ago. He has announced his run for the presidency and I’m rather worried over how some of my fellow conservatives are, all of a sudden, getting on the Barr band-wagon.

Let me make this clear.


First of all, I would not be surprised if Bob Barr is a paid operative of rich liberals in the DNC and Howard Dean. Remember, the DNC and the .orgers have launched a mutli million dollar campaign to attack John McCain. Is Barr on the payroll? You’d also have to ask yourselves logically, do we need another Ross Perot type situation ala Clinton vs. Bush circa 1992? He could essentially turn out to be Ross Perot minus the money or the personality. He can’t raise money. He can’t win. Stop kidding yourselves. And back to my original point of him being a plant doesn’t sound too far off when you really think about it. I mean, what other perfect scenario would there be for liberals and Obama? Obama gets the nomination and now McCain will have to debate a Johnny come lately? It would be perfect for them.

What do you know about Barr?

Did you know that Bob Barr has just struck a deal with the ACLU? That’s right, the same ACLU that represents CAIR and organizations like NAMBLA. Bob Barr has formed an alliance with the ACLU since they are on the same page on privacy issues. He is against the national ID, “know your customer” banking systems and the citizen TIPS program.

But let’s back track a moment. Bob Barr has been lauded by conservatives as being anti gay rights correct? Well then why is he forming an alliance with the ACLU who not only condones but represents grown men who think it’s normal to bed young boys?

Confused? I sure as fuck am.

Did you know that Bob Barr teamed up with AL GORE for a policy address, sponsored by the and libertarian Liberty Coalition? Barr is an outspoken critic of Bush on issues of national security. Here’s what said about that event: “The speech will specifically point to domestic wiretapping and torture as examples of the administration's efforts to extend executive power beyond Congressional direction and judicial review,” according to a press release. “The extent of bipartisan concern over these issues is highlighted by former Republican Rep. Bob Barr's introduction of the Vice President and by the organizations cosponsoring the speech.”

As a Republican, he was an advocate of the WAR ON DRUGS. He led a prohibition against medical marijuana. But now he’s a Libertarian. Isn’t the backbone of libertarianism that the government have little or no involvement in individual liberties? He led the way for government to take away individual rights for a cancer patient to smoke medical pot and now he’s a libertarian who believes in an ideology that would go against that.

I’m still confused.

Did you know that Bob Barr was married three times? His second marriage to then wife Gail ended in divorce and believed to be due to HIS infidelities. When asked about it in 1999, he refused to answer. Another rumor that has surfaced about Barr over the years has been if he is of mixed race. I have no problem with that. But could we at least know? Or do we have to play the guessing game like we do with Obama? I’d say it isn’t true but try doing a simple search into his background. Try finding something about him and his early life. Just go to Wikipedia. It should be on there, right? Not.

Conservatives, you’re going to do it again. This past summer, we vetted and cross referenced all of our candidates and beat the piss out of each other for the true conservative. We ended up with John McCain. I agree he’s not perfect. But he’s better than Obama, Hillary or the other phantom candidate Bob Barr.

So is this going to happen again this summer go around? Are pro McCainers going to go round robin with the Barr Bandwagon as to who’s more conservative? Are some of you going to get behind someone who doesn’t have a Chinamen’s chance of winning?

I won’t have it. I won’t participate. I know who my candidate is and my energies will be focusing on the conservative who McCain should pick for Vice Presidential candidate.

For me, that man is BOBBY JINDAL, governor of Louisana. This Punjabi Indian turned Catholic is conservative as the day is long. With McCain at 72, this is the guy who I would want to take over if the old codger, God forbid, kicked the bucket.

Here’s a little more about Jindal.

Graduated high school at 16.
Rhodes scholar with a Masters in Political Science at Oxford.
Married since 1997 and the father of three children.
The youngest sitting governor in the United States.
100 % against abortion. No exceptions.
Opposes embryonic stem cell research and cloning.
Voted for the Stelly Tax Plan.
Supported a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.
Sponsored the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761), a bill to eliminate the
moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling over the U.S. outer continental shelf, which prompted the watchdog group Republicans for Environmental Protection to issue him an environmental harm demerit.
Believes intelligence is the first line of defense against terrorism.
Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists.
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses.
Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts.
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.
Prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction




In this show, I expressed my dislike for Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always this way. Recently, I feel that he's become too lenient on some issues. A little too wishy/washy. And a little too soft. And if you watched his interview w/ Hillary Clinton. Also, he tends to have a "I'm Bill O'Reilly and you're not" manner about him. On occasion, he's even gone so far as to declare Michael Savage and Mark Levin "far right winged kooks". So with that said I thought to include this video sent to me this morning by a friend.
It's fair and balanced. You decide.


While we all said many things about Osama, excuse me Obama, I feel like there were some things that I left out. As I stated on the show, I've seen a lot of blogs and articles written on the subject of Obama. So I think I should add my two sense and talk about anything we may have left out or, perhaps, wasn't clear. And then you could, the reader/listener, add anything you feel I missed.
I actually believe it is the LEAST of our worries regarding this man. But it does warrant a conversation. After all, the rambling rhetoric that he spews includes "opening a dialogue" with each other. In the blogs that I've read, I saw one blogger state that, because his mother was an atheist, Mr. O couldn't be a devout Muslim because they don't marry atheists. Good point. And if you don't know about his mother, Stanley, please refer to this article:
But here's a better point:
His mother was named Stanley because her father wanted a boy. According to those who knew her, she had nothing but contempt for her father, authority and men. She was married twice. Once to a Kenyan who named him Barack Hussein Obama. Why would someone who is a non practicing Muslim name their son with the names Barack and Hussein? Both names have DEEP meaning in the Islamic faith. If he was just a proud African, why didn't he call him Nelson after Mandela or Louis or Desmond? I think we should be asking why would a woman, who was a radical atheist/feminist, would allow her son to be named with 2 names that have deep religious meaning? Perhaps it was because his father was either a radical or actually WAS devout in the belief of Islam and, as Islam teaches, that women are like chattel. He would've DEMANDED it from her and DEMANDED that his son carry those names.
What can you say to these ObamaMentalCases? You ask them, "why are going to vote for him?". They'll respond, "he really represents change" or "he's offering something that the others aren't". But what is that? When looking at Obama, you have to follow the money. We can sit here and discuss the Red Chinese contributions made to Hillary's campaign. But that would be boring. Because after all, Obama is really the candidate who claims himself as being apart from all of that "big time D.C. corruption."
So, if he's really claiming to be that "change agent" against the oppressive "man", why was he involved with someone like Tony Rezko? You know, the old saying goes: "you are who you hang with."
Rezko, Syrian immigrant and slum lord, is considered in most Chicago circles as "the fixer" or a man who "makes things happen" for a price. He and Obama were involved with a real estate where Obama made a small financial killing. But the phantom behind this whole deal is non other than Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi. Washington Times identified Auchi as a global arms dealer and Iraqi billionaire who served as Saddam Hussein's principle international financial manipulator. In other terms, he was the bag man. He has engaged in unlawful activities" such as bribing "foreign governments and individuals prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein." He also helped "arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq."
Political pundits have asked, why would Rezko and a Saddam protege, be interested in a rising U.S. politician who was also opposed to the ousting of Hussein by U.S. forces? Why would that billionaire lend that much money to Obama's fundraiser, Rezko, with the two buying adjacent properties from the same seller on the same day? Through various dealings, Rezko wound up owing Auchi more than $27 million. What did Auchi want in return? Perhaps a friend in the White House? Remember, both Rezko and Auchi are in the business of buying influence.
I thought Obama's brand of change meant NOT cozying up to rouge dictators like we have in the past. So then who is Ralia Odinga? Obama has made several "special" trips to see Odinga in 2006. Odinga is the head of the Muslim Leaders Forum in Kenya. He has also made it clear that he will overthrow ANY legitimate Democratic government in Kenya, by whatever means necessary, in order to become President of Kenya FOR LIFE. If he is successful, Kenya will become the African Afghanistan.
But it's not only people like Odinga that Obama is willing to open policy of dialogue and accommodation. He has opposed listing Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and proposed a grand bargain with Syria's rulers. He is even prepared to ignore two UN Security Council resolutions that require Iran to stop its uranium-enrichment program as a precondition for talks at the highest level. He has campaigned for a formal congressional move to prevent Bush from taking any military action against Tehran.
Obama has become the first major presidential candidate in 25 years not to commit himself to transferring the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Obama has promised to withdraw from Iraq in his first year in office meeting a key demand of ALL Islamic radical forces. He proposes to reverse policies that have taken shape over more than six decades under 12 successive American presidents.
Eventhough he's only been a Senator, technically, since 2004, Obama has claimed to have more foreign policy experience than Clinton. If you talk to the ObamaMentalCases, they'll tell you he has more foreign policy experience than McCain. Mind you, half of his Senatorial tenure was spent running for the highest office in the land. Sound absurd?
Why would people who support Obama in this country, from all parties, liberal, conservative and independent, who have been starving for a real military leader, those who claim they'd prefer their leaders SERVED, want a candidate like Barack Hussein Obama over John Sydney McCain? It is clear to me that, out of the three candidates, Obama comes in a DISTANT THIRD to McCain's FIRST and Hillary's SECOND on the issue of national security.
How you could be a military person or have someone you love enlisted in the military and vote for Barack Hussein Obama is beyond me.
Please watch one of his campaign videos. Yes, that's right. He's actually stated that we CUT our space, nuclear and space defense programs. Here's the text:
"...I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."